ALL BLACKS’ TOUR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19350, 10 December 1924, Page 4

ALL BLACKS’ TOUR.

THE IRISH MATCH. WEATHER AGAINST NEW ZEALAND. GREENS’ MISTAKEN TACTICS Specially Written for the Otago Daily Times. By Colonel Philip Tbevoe, C.B.E. LONDON, November 4. I come now to the first international match, Ireland v. New Zealand, played at Dublin on Saturday last. If 1 put the weather in the forefront of my remarks 1 do so designedly and with intention. It was the all-important factor, and if it were not unprecedented I personally cannot recall conditions that wore similar. The weather fought against New Zealand. After a quiet night, rain—direct rain unaccompanied by wind —began to fall about 10 o’clock, and continued to do so till about 2 b’clock. Then a strong wind came and blew the rain away. The Irishmen won the toss, and very wisely did they choose to have that wind at their backs in the first half. An early surprise was in store for us. A new ball was used, and we soon discovered that it kept surprisingly dry. The grass of the turf was long, and the high wind had nearly dried it when play began. IRELAND’S WRONG TACTICS. But that high wind proved to be a fatal temptation to the Irishmen. They realised their chance of ground gaining by reason of it. and they concentrated on that alone. Now, after all, ground-gaining is_ only a means to an end, and not a end in itself. History repeated itself at Dublin. The Irishmen pressed and pressed- but the New Zealand defence wag like the prover.bwl rock. I knew that the policy the Irishmen were then following was wrong, and they got a hint or two that it was wrong. Twice they gave their three-quarter line a chance, and each time ought to have been encouraged by the result. One of those movements was well under way when an -inexcusably bad pass brought it to nothing, On another occasion T. Hewitt, the left wing three-quarter, was all but over the goal line. In neither case was the movement instituted in the Nev, Zealand twenty-five. Both movements came moderately early in the first half, but no attempt to repeat them was made. Subsequently it wag “kick, kick, kick” from the Irishmen all the time. The New Zealanders, on the other hand, deliberately refrained from open attack at this period, and in my opinion rightly :o. Indeed, it struck me that they were deliberately letting the Irishmen gat the bad, so that the, Irish backs might bo induced to continue the kicking game. The tourists knew,. or thought they knew, that their turn was coming, and when it did come they would know how to use the high wind, the firm turf, and the dry ball. THE FICKLE WIND. But that turn never came. A few minutes before the whistle blew for halftime the wind dropped—dropped suddenly like a bird that had been shot. The flag's hung limp on their posts, and steady, direct rain fell, but only for a few minutes. Then the wind sprang up again, this time at right-angles to the field of play. Again it veered, and the poor, disappointed New Zealanders, who had then changed ends, had the mortification of feeling it once more in their faces. It ‘increased in power, and so did the rain. By this time the ball was slippery and the turf had become insecure. Still, the Irishmen had not scor6ci % Nor, for a matter of that, had the New Zealanders.

But very early in the second half came (he one try of the match. New Zealand was attacking at the time, and a forward tossed the ball to M. Brownlie. Brownlie used his judgment as well as his strength, and Svcnson rushed up on his right. ft wa 3 all over in a flash. Brownlie went just far enough before giving Svenson the ball, and the latter, with a dash and s side-step, did. the rest, FPorhaps' it. was not exactly a great try; but it was an apt illustration of the value of quick decision and accurate execution.

A little later came the penalty goal kicked by Nicholls,- and this was something of a gift to. ,the . winners. One- of- the Irish forwards, who, by the way, was new to international football, was culpably ■ offside. One could not sympathise ■ with him. On a former occasion ho had made a similar careless blunder. Impetuosity uncontrolled by judgment is a tactical crime. I had felt that -a three-point lead was likely to be a winning one; I knew that a six-point lead was good enough. ,JBut the Irish pack was still going very strong, and breaking precedent iri a way which naturally delighted the crowd. Irish packs are not wont to last through two gruelling “forties,” and when a really fine pack of this kind does last, a “rush” try or two when the weather is bad is always a possibility. CONTRAST IN STYLES.

Great, then, was my surprise to see the Irishmen- try to win by other means. When their backs could reasonably have hoped to carry out bouts of passing they refused to try. Now, when it needed super-Welsh-men of the old school to do this kind of thing effectively, they made the attempt. Nor, when they had got the ball, did they do what they wanted to do in the right .way. Cutting through i s one thing, bullocking through is quite another. It was ludicrous to try to bullock through the New Zealand defence. Yet that was what the Irish centre three-quarters attempted to do more than once.

Having got these half-dozen points, the New Zealanders were content to leave well alone. They still played hard, but they also played watchfully. They took a negative lesson from the Irish backs. They were careful Ip note what not to do. They never opened up the game for their back division at all, and they wore right. I never thought all through the match that Ireland would win it. Prior to there being any scoring at all, I thought New Zealand would win, and after the getting of the first try I w-as sure they would. NEPIA UNRIVALLED. It was not a. day for the making of personal reputations, but Nepia, if possible, enhanced his. I have spoken to men who have recently returned from witnessing some of the games played in South Africa by the British team. They tell me that m that country there is no full-back as good as Nepia, and in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales I am sure he has no rival. Admirable were Nicholls and Cooke against Ireland, and the more 1 see Dailey play the more I am impressed by him. Once again I thought M. Brownlie the best of the forwards. It was just his day; but very much to the fore were Parker and Richardson. From this game I learnt nothing more about these famous lourislg than 1 knew before, but. if I must bo frank, my attention was once again drawn to the limitation in attack of an otherwise superlative back division. In the mud and rain those men _ attack as well as any modern back division attacks, possibly (I only say “possibly”) a shade better; but in this important particular they are not the equal of some old-time Welsh back divisions I have seen. Their forwards are now a really fine workmanlike combination. They are certainly the best tackling forwards of the day. and in the loose they are unsurpassed. NOT INVINCIBLE. It is a great team, but still ought not to bo invincible. Not •*~t has it met a team_w4fo.se back division can attack in combination, and intend to continue to try to do so, regardless of what their increasingly famous opponents are doing In other words, if and when the Now Zealanders are beaten, they will be beaten by a team whoso backs are definitely determined to attack in combination at any cost Or risk.

(The New Zealand team against Ireland was; —Nepia; Hart, Lucas, Svonsori; Cooke, Nicholls; Dailey; Parker; Richardson’, White, M. Brownlie, Masters, Guppies’ Irvine, Donald.] '